ALPHA HEALTH CARE TRADING AS EDMUND'S PRIVATE HOSPITAL v DAWSON [1996] NSWCA 12

ALPHA HEALTH CARE TRADING AS EDMUND'S PRIVATE HOSPITAL v DAWSON

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, MAHONEY P and WADDELL AJA 18 April 1996, 18 April 1996 [1996] NSWCA 12

Workers Compensation — assessment and amount of Compensation

WORKERS COMPENSATION The appeal involved a challenge to one aspect of an award under s66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 - HELD - On the evidence the challenge was not made good. No question of principle was involved.

ORDERS Appeal dismissed with costs.

Gleeson CJ This is an appeal from a decision of his Honour Judge Burke in the Compensation Court given on | February 1995.

Although a number of grounds of appeal were originally raised, the issues have been substantially narrowed in the way in which the case has been presented by senior counsel for the appellant. The only challenge to the findings that is now made is a challenge to the finding, on page 8 of his Honour's reasons for judgment, that the worker suffered at the time of the hearing a 25 per cent permanent loss of efficient use of her left leg. The only aspect of the award that is challenged is the award of a lump sum, pursuant to s66, in respect of permanent loss of the efficient use of the left leg at or above the knee, in the amount of $18,506.25.

I do not intend to repeat what appears in the reasons for judgment of his Honour Burke CCJ. Those reasons will be available to be read together with the judgment of this Court. The portion of the reasons for judgment that is under challenge in this appeal is so much of the reasons as relates to the worker's left leg, and as appears from the top of page 6 to the middle of page 7 in his Honour's reasons.

In substance, there are two criticisms that are made. First, it is submitted that his Honour was in error in finding on the evidence before him that there was a permanent loss of the efficient use of the worker's left leg. Second, it is submitted that, in any event, the percentage of 25 per cent assigned by his Honour in that respect was excessive.